Increased Time from Onset of Symptoms to Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction is Associated with More...

This cohort study aimed to identify whether time greater than 3 months between the onset of new symptoms of instability after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) and subsequent revision ACLR influences outcomes of revision surgery. We hypothesized greater than 3 months from onset of symptoms to revision ACLR is associated with increased intra-articular damage and poorer outcomes following revision ACLR. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who underwent revision ACLR at a large tertiary referral institution between 2008 and 2019. Demographic, surgical, and postsurgical data were collected. Patients who underwent revision ACLR within 3 months of documented graft symptomology were defined as the Early Revision group, and patients who underwent revision ACLR at or greater than 3 months after onset of graft symptomology were defined as the Late Revision group. Demographic data, intraoperative findings, subsequent graft failure, and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the groups. A total of 74 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients in the Late Revision group were more likely to have cartilage damage in the patella, trochlea, medial tibial plateau, lateral femoral condyle, and lateral tibial plateau. Patients in the Late Revision group were also more likely to have concomitant lateral meniscus tears. Medial meniscus tears identified at time of surgery in this group were also less likely to be deemed repairable. No significant differences were noted in postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, Marx Activity scores, or ACL graft retear risk based on the time from injury to surgery. Undergoing revision ACLR more than 3 months after graft tear is associated with more severe articular cartilage damage, more frequent lateral meniscus pathology, and a greater incidence of irreparable medial meniscus tears. No significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or revision graft failure risk were observed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  III.